OPINION APRIL 11, 2011 The Constitution Doesn't Mention CzarsUnaccountable White House aides are a product of a broken cabinet-nomination process. This is not the form of government the Founders intended.

By GEORGE P. SHULTZ A pattern of governance has emerged in Washington that departs substantially from that envisaged in our Constitution. Under our basic concept of governance: (1) a president and vice president are elected; and (2) the departments of government are staffed by constitutional officers including secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries and others who are nominated by the president and confirmed for service by the consent of the Senate. They are publicly accountable and may be called to testify under oath about their activities.

Over time, this form of governance has changed. Presidents sometimes assume that the bureaucracy will try to capture a secretary and his or her immediate staff so that they will develop a departmental, rather than a White House, point of view. So presidents will name someone in the White House to oversee the department and keep a tight rein on its activities.

In national security and foreign policy, the National Security Council (NSC) was established after World War II by the National Security Act of 1947. As late as 1961, under President Dwight Eisenhower, the NSC was supported by a small staff headed by an executive secretary with a "passion for anonymity" and limited to a coordinating role. In subsequent administrations, that passion disappeared and staff members took on operational duties that formerly were the responsibility of constitutionally confirmed cabinet officials. This aggrandizement of the staff function then spread into fields far beyond national security.

More recently, the situation has been worsened by the difficulty of getting presidential nominees to cabinet and subcabinet positions approved and in place. The White House vetting process has become exhaustive, with potential appointees required to fill out extensive questionnaires on such things as foreign travel and personal acquaintances, let alone financial matters. Mistakes are potentially subject to criminal penalties. The result is a drawn-out and often disagreeable process from the time a person agrees to a job to the actual nomination.

Formal nominations do not necessarily receive quick consideration by Senate committees, which routinely request additional information. Sometimes a nomination, voted legitimately out of the committee, can be put on hold indefinitely as one member of the Senate uses the hold as a bargaining chip to get some matter, often unrelated, settled to his or her satisfaction.

These long delays make for great difficulty in assembling an administration, particularly in its crucial first year. The result has been appointment of people to the White House staff with de facto decision-making power over all the major areas of government. This practice also extends to foreign affairs, as a variety of special envoys and "special representatives" are appointed, often with ambiguity about whether they report directly to the president or to the secretary of state.

The practice of appointing White House "czars" to rule over various issues or regions is not a new invention. But centralized management by the White House staff has been greatly increased in recent years.

Beyond constitutional questions, such White House advisers, counselors, staffers and czars are not accountable. They cannot be called to testify under oath, and when Congress asks them to come, they typically plead executive privilege.

The consequences, apart from the matter of legitimate governance, are all too often bad for the formation and execution of policy. The departments, not the White House, have the capacity to carry out policies and they are full of people, whether political appointees or career governmental employees, who have vast experience and much to contribute to the making of ­policy. When White House staffers try to formulate or execute policy, they can easily get off track in a way that would not happen in a regular department.

As secretary of state under President Ronald Reagan, I experienced this with great pain when White House people developed and ran an off-the-books program of arms sales to Iran. It erupted in the Iran-Contra scandal involving the unconstitutional transfer of funds not appropriated by Congress to the Contras, and with close to devastating consequences for the president.

Iran-Contra is a dramatic example, but the more general problem is the inability to take full advantage of available skills and expertise in policy making, and the difficulty in carrying out the functions of government nationally and internationally.

What must be done?

To return to a more effective and constitutionally sound use of cabinet members and their departments in helping the president formulate policy, cabinet secretaries could be grouped into important functional categories—national security and foreign policy, economics, natural resources, human resources, the rule of law, education, health and others. All of these subjects involve more than one department. Sometimes the natural convener is obvious; in other instances the leading role might simply rotate.

With the help of staff coordinators in the White House, cabinet members might convene by themselves and then with the president. This would involve the departments and, at the same time, ensure that a presidential, rather than a departmental, point of view would prevail. Policy execution would be improved, as would support for legislative initiatives.

The main goal is to assure that a cabinet member—not a White House aide—is always in charge. The result would be not so much cabinet government as presidential government with the heavy involvement of accountable officials in the administration.

Then, and foremost, the appointment process must be moved back to what it was even as recently as the Reagan administration. The assumption is that honorable people want to serve honorably. Reasonable vetting, such as a review of Internal Revenue Service and Federal Bureau of Investigation records, can be done quickly. A bad apple will surely be discovered and can be discarded.

I remember a passage in the late great American statesman Paul Nitze's autobiography. A friend in the FDR administration called and asked him to work in government—he would receive no pay, only an extra desk and an assistant. In this wholly illegitimate way, he began his career in the federal government.

Nitze's record of public service is legendary. I was lucky to serve with such a great and honorable man. I am not recommending that today's vetting process be like his, but I worry: Could we attract a Paul Nitze to the government today?

Today's problems are daunting and of critical importance. We need today's Paul Nitzes involved in the process of governance. It's imperative that we get back to a constitutional and accountable form of government before confidence in our capacity to govern further erodes.

Mr. Shultz, former secretary of labor (1969-70), secretary of the Treasury (1972-74) and secretary of state (1982-89), is a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

The Constitution doesn't mention a lot of things, but that doesn't stop the Federal Government from doing them anyway. And some people wonder why this government and country are so screwed up right now.

_________________

April 11th, 2011, 9:31 pm

Blueskies

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 3121

Re: The Constitution Doesn't Mention Czars

Pretty much everything the (federal) government has done in the last 100 years is not mentioned in the Constitution. That document ceased to have any relevancy long ago.

April 12th, 2011, 4:38 am

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: The Constitution Doesn't Mention Czars

Blue,

It's still relevant just not enforced. With as corrupt as this nation has become in the last several decades, it's no wonder we have the President we have. SSI has become a source of income for perfectly healthy individuals.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

What you see is the construction of a State run system where Uncle Sam provides everything. Food, Housing, Utilities, Medical Care, Income, it's all there! The problem is that Government always has, and always will provide the "bland" middle of the road for everyone to enjoy.

Those of us who want the Government to enforce our borders are being outnumbered by a Propagandist Media that is selling a lame horse. The truth is layered in so much manure that it takes too much time for those who don't wish to dig for it. We've become complacent, fat, and lazy by our easy society much like the characters of Wall E.

_________________Acts 4:13, 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Rom. 12:1-2

April 12th, 2011, 11:13 am

njroar

Team MVP

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 amPosts: 3265

Re: The Constitution Doesn't Mention Czars

A government big enough to give you everything you need, is big enough to take away everything you have.

Pretty much everything the (federal) government has done in the last 100 years is not mentioned in the Constitution. That document ceased to have any relevancy long ago.

I agree and the country has been on a downward spiral ever since. That's why we need to return to our roots and embrace the principles laid out by the founding fathers. I think you also believe in that concept, but fear that the country is too far gone to be saved at this point. I also have fears of this, but don't believe it's a lost cause just yet.

_________________

April 13th, 2011, 11:16 pm

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10408Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: The Constitution Doesn't Mention Czars

The problem in this country is that the Congressmen, Senators and other high profile politicians no longer feel they work for the people, but they work for whoever or whatever they've sold out to. It's entirely too easy for them to feather their own nests while completely ignoring the will of the citizens in our country. If the politicians in Washington had been listening, Obama would still be trying to cram that ridiculous Healthcare Bill down our throats, and the politicians would still be telling him that the majority of the nation doesn't support it, so neither do they. Instead, they just saw an opportunity to exempt themselves and their cronies from having that forced upon them, and to add a ridiculous amount of pork to that bill in exchange for their vote.

Sometimes I think the best thing that could happen to this country is for a terrorist to explode a nuclear device in the middle of Washington when the Congress and Senate are in session with a majority in attendance, the idiot is in the White House and not on yet another million dollar vacation, and Biden is in the Oval Office with him, doing whatever it is he does. That would be about the only way we could wipe out all the scum suckers and start fresh.

There's not a damn thing wrong with the Constitution. The problem is that those people who have taken an oath to enforce and protect it have done neither. They should all be put on a gallows and hung for treason.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

April 14th, 2011, 10:58 am

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: The Constitution Doesn't Mention Czars

It would be interesting to do a study on "lobbyists" and their potential of influenicng government. When it started roughly around the 1860's they met Senators in the lobby trying to push their agenda. They've continued ever since, and used $ to sweeten the deals. This system is one of the main contributors to corruption in my opinion, that and special interests groups. They may not have led all these guys astray, but the provided the bait that did.

_________________Acts 4:13, 1 Cor. 2:1-5, Rom. 12:1-2

April 14th, 2011, 2:08 pm

Blueskies

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 3121

Re: The Constitution Doesn't Mention Czars

Quote:

I agree and the country has been on a downward spiral ever since. That's why we need to return to our roots and embrace the principles laid out by the founding fathers. I think you also believe in that concept, but fear that the country is too far gone to be saved at this point. I also have fears of this, but don't believe it's a lost cause just yet.

I don't fear it. I've long accepted it. Mostly because people don't realize how bad the problems truly are. We are operating a full fledged ponzi scheme right now, and its going to come to an end at some point. When it does the consequences will be disastrous. I think we are in a depression right now that is bad but not as bad as the great depression. But, when the currency collapses, we will enter into a depression that will be worse than anything the country has ever seen. The other major economic power--China--is in the midst of the largest economic bubble in the history of the world. What will happen when the two economic powers the world is based on collapse? I don't know, but it won't be good.

You could prevent our economic collapse if you radically reformed the budget right now. And by "right now" I mean like today. But many on the left think budget deficits are actually good (such a crazy idea its hopeless to argue against) and many on the right think that we can solve our problems just by cutting NPR and planned parenthood. Please.

So, I'm just going to accept the things which are to come, work on my building my own personal fortune, and maybe try to escape to Australia before things get really dicey. This post may sound crazy, but its not. Economics is a science. Once you understand how it works, its not that hard to see how the big picture will play out. Just give it another decade. Of course, I may change my mind if someone invents a machine to convert cars to run on salt water, but I don't believe in miracles.

April 15th, 2011, 6:36 am

wjb21ndtown

Re: The Constitution Doesn't Mention Czars

Blueskies wrote:

Quote:

I agree and the country has been on a downward spiral ever since. That's why we need to return to our roots and embrace the principles laid out by the founding fathers. I think you also believe in that concept, but fear that the country is too far gone to be saved at this point. I also have fears of this, but don't believe it's a lost cause just yet.

I don't fear it. I've long accepted it. Mostly because people don't realize how bad the problems truly are. We are operating a full fledged ponzi scheme right now, and its going to come to an end at some point. When it does the consequences will be disastrous. I think we are in a depression right now that is bad but not as bad as the great depression. But, when the currency collapses, we will enter into a depression that will be worse than anything the country has ever seen. The other major economic power--China--is in the midst of the largest economic bubble in the history of the world. What will happen when the two economic powers the world is based on collapse? I don't know, but it won't be good.

You could prevent our economic collapse if you radically reformed the budget right now. And by "right now" I mean like today. But many on the left think budget deficits are actually good (such a crazy idea its hopeless to argue against) and many on the right think that we can solve our problems just by cutting NPR and planned parenthood. Please.

So, I'm just going to accept the things which are to come, work on my building my own personal fortune, and maybe try to escape to Australia before things get really dicey. This post may sound crazy, but its not. Economics is a science. Once you understand how it works, its not that hard to see how the big picture will play out. Just give it another decade. Of course, I may change my mind if someone invents a machine to convert cars to run on salt water, but I don't believe in miracles.

I agree with you completely. That's why I ask about Canada, and other ways to protect yourself against our currency/debt/other problems. I don't know where I would go or what I would do yet, but I definitely want to have a contingency plan to get the hell out of here.

Personally I find it comical that we have watched European countries fail, and then adopt the same strategy to get out of it.

April 16th, 2011, 1:25 am

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3056Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: The Constitution Doesn't Mention Czars

Not to throw Scripture into this and derail the thread, but I honestly believe that y'all are looking a little short sighted.

Every nation has got to get onto the same, or related system. There is a well documented group of individuals who have the wealth and power to influence countries. Soros is the mosted vocal mouthpiece of the group. His claim to have bankrupted 4 nations, just by using his money to devalue the currency, and other things.

Looking at a much larger perspective: Soros went after the elections of the Secretary of State for the States. By doing this he can affect the vote count of said states, thereby getting people into office that he wants. It's not flashy but it's SMART, and out of the way so no one suspects it.

Europe will go on the EU system, The Americas will go on one syste, and Asian Pacific will probably go on another. The money will more than likely be the same value but unified currency, Euros, Dollars, and Yens or soemthing like that. Instead of an individual country, it would be continent groups or something.

Obama, is doing absolutely the same thing as Soros, he is destroying this country by digging the hole so deep that we won't recover. Not only that but our dollar has been devalued to almost half it's worth. Our resources are sold to other countries, but we're prevented from using our own (oil to Brazil for one).

All you need to do is look into the Bible to see the things that were predicted, coming to pass. I'm not saying this to scream the sky is falling, you make your own choice, but the things recorded are happening, and or have happened.